Formula 1 2020 - General Discussion Thread (See MOD warning on first post)

quokula

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Reading the recent threads here where different views are being well argued over RP and "Brakegate", it's reinforcing my belief that F1 has become an overly expensive, over-engineered, and over complicated mess.The pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence is not reflected in the spectacle on track. It's more like an arms race than a sport.

Yeah it's a far cry from where it used to be. I am hopeful that the new rules will drag it back towards being a sport again, it's such a shame they delayed them from 2021 to 2022.

PukkaStukka

quokula wrote: »

Yeah it's a far cry from where it used to be. I am hopeful that the new rules will drag it back towards being a sport again, it's such a shame they delayed them from 2021 to 2022.

Unfortunately I'm not as optimistic about the new rule changes making a change in the pecking order or closing teams up. Mercedes has such strength in depth and near infinite resources that their 2022 challenger is already well under development and likely ahead of the others. This is one of the reasons why they are dominant now: they entered the hybrid era with a package that was years in development and much sooner than the others, and with rules freezing development, that advantage was massively locked in. I forsee the same happening again with the upcoming rules changes. We can't reproach Mercedes for doing such a good job and better than everyone else, but their continued dominance will not be a good thing for the sport. Followers and viewers are already apathetic, and new teams and manufacturers will be seriously dissuaded from participating. There's only one direction things can go in thereafter.

duploelabs

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Unfortunately I'm not as optimistic about the new rule changes making a change in the pecking order or closing teams up. Mercedes has such strength in depth and near infinite resources that their 2022 challenger is already well under development and likely ahead of the others. This is one of the reasons why they are dominant now: they entered the hybrid era with a package that was years in development and much sooner than the others, and with rules freezing development, that advantage was massively locked in. I forsee the same happening again with the upcoming rules changes. We can't reproach Mercedes for doing such a good job and better than everyone else, but their continued dominance will not be a good thing for the sport. Followers and viewers are already apathetic, and new teams and manufacturers will be seriously dissuaded from participating. There's only one direction things can go in thereafter.

I'd counter that Ferrari have equal resources at their disposal, and have even an advantage given their ability to 'shape the direction' of formula 1 to suit their advantage. But like all good sports teams, you have to have the right people in the right places which, I'll give you, Mercedes have done, and as shown so clearly recently (arguably since Jean Todt left) Ferrari haven't

H3llR4iser

mickdw wrote: »

Could a team copy a car in this manner from photographing and scanning. Running a mercedes and gearbox and any other purchasable parts would be a big help in pulling everything together but i think you would just end up with a car that looked great but didnt work.
Its abit too hollywood to believe that it could work very well straight off. After all, racing point could have little understanding of how it to set it up etc.

Nope, it can't be done, it's pure horse manure, period. If it was possible at all, everyone would be doing it. We're not talking about making an Airfix kit or a 3D print here, we're talking about the complex engineering assembly that is a racecar. Anyone believing RP's pitch is either a Racing Point fan, technically ignorant or straight up naive.

The exterior shape and look is the last of the factors - stuff like internal flow, carbon fibre layering, fluid routing, weight distribution, even surface characteristics (e.g. how much the air "slides" over a part) are absolutely VITAL parts of a design, and can't be "copied" via photos.

The complexity is such that teams struggle to find what the issues are with their own designs - again, if it was as easy as looking at a photo of a Mercedes part and go "eureka, that's how you do it!", no team would struggle. Hell on Earth - Ferrari, the one team with finances and engineering capabilities to match Mercedes, have designed a turd of a chassis (besides the well-known engine issues) and can't for the life of them figure out what's wrong with it.

I don't know how they did the data exchange - like with Ferrari's engine shenanigans, we'll most likely never find out. Other teams know this and that an investigation would be long, complex and expensive - and most likely were banking on either Racing Point failing to maximize the potential of the design, or for a 1-year-old W10 to basically be swallowed, pace wise, by the midfield. Expect Red Bull to join the choir if RP manage to fully unlock the car and prove it's the second fastest on the grid.

Lastly, there's an interesting thing in the way the rules Renault mentioned are worded - they pretty much talk about parts needing to be an own design. There are likely legal grounds for claiming that even an hypotetical "copy" would be in violation of such rule. It's indeed a case that could shape the future of the sport.

Joeface

I suppose for me the short answer really is , if you maked a copy from photos you would probably end up doing twice the amount of Testing , most photos are exterior only . How could you possibly get the internals correct . Far more expensive way of getting an end product . Even with ppl of knowledge in every field the guess work is too much . There had to be some input . I dont mind to much the copying , everyone is copying everyone in some way . Its just this is a clone from the word go. It wasn't a case off you saw the path the opposion was on and you could now develop a similar part to improve your product .

I do remember I think 2 season ago , Max finished on the podium but the footage after the race was Vettel (as he does) walking around the car looking at everything and then saying on camera " thats ours , thats ours , thats from ours " and laughing as Red bull had copied some Ideas from Ferrari , but the cars were still different . They started different and they would still be different at the end .

El_Duderino 09

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Reading the recent threads here where different views are being well argued over RP and "Brakegate", it's reinforcing my belief that F1 has become an overly expensive, over-engineered, and over complicated mess.The pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence is not reflected in the spectacle on track. It's more like an arms race than a sport.

When was f1 not an arms race? Its the pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence precisely because it's an arms race. The technology in the pass t was simpler but it was the cutting edge if it's day or else it wouldn't have been the pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence.

One difference is that the internal combustion engine had fewer competitors and was less far down its development track. Now the gains might not be as significant.

But what's the solution? One option would be to stop developing future technology and stop being the pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence.

El_Duderino 09

Joeface wrote: »

I suppose for me the short answer really is , if you maked a copy from photos you would probably end up doing twice the amount of Testing , most photos are exterior only . How could you possibly get the internals correct . Far more expensive way of getting an end product . Even with ppl of knowledge in every field the guess work is too much . There had to be some input . I dont mind to much the copying , everyone is copying everyone in some way . Its just this is a clone from the word go. It wasn't a case off you saw the path the opposion was on and you could now develop a similar part to improve your product ...

Supposedly they can scan them as well as photograph them. So they can get an internal picture too.

But if it could be done, then they'd all be doing it. It's not realistic that Mercedes rivals haven't even thought about doing it themselves and the only team who did think of doing it successfully is a team that's already pretty friendly with Mercedes - and Mercedes doesn't seem to mind.

It's pretty clear that it's a collaboration between merc and RP. Whether they'll be found to have broken rules is another matter.

Joeface

Next question is , Do you punish the copy or the assistance . Or BOTH . Pretty sure if its seen as help the other Teams will want both Punished

Adamocovic

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Reading the recent threads here where different views are being well argued over RP and "Brakegate", it's reinforcing my belief that F1 has become an overly expensive, over-engineered, and over complicated mess.The pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence is not reflected in the spectacle on track. It's more like an arms race than a sport.

I think we’re all hoping the changes planned will help level out the field.

Shame they’ve been pushed back but understandable.

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Supposedly they can scan them as well as photograph them. So they can get an internal picture too.

But if it could be done, then they'd all be doing it. It's not realistic that Mercedes rivals haven't even thought about doing it themselves and the only team who did think of doing it successfully is a team that's already pretty friendly with Mercedes - and Mercedes doesn't seem to mind.

It's pretty clear that it's a collaboration between merc and RP. Whether they'll be found to have broken rules is another matter.

Then again, in order to "scan" a part - whatever that means from a simple 3D all around picture to proper X-Ray - you'd need to have it in your possession; CSI technology that can magically create data that's not in the picture or perform a full in depth "scan" from a distance doesn't exist yet.

And when that's the case, there's an important question to be asked - "why do you guys even have this part in your possession?".

El_Duderino 09

Joeface wrote: »

Next question is , Do you punish the copy or the assistance . Or BOTH . Pretty sure if its seen as help the other Teams will want both Punished

In reality, F1 tends to smudge it all over in favour of clarity in the following year's rules. An example is what they did with Ferrari's engine last year. They clarified the rules to mean they had to use a legal engine the following year without actually saying the engine was illegal in the first place. No need for punishment or any retribution but it meant everyone was clear that they couldn't do the same thing with their engine.

El_Duderino 09

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Then again, in order to "scan" a part - whatever that means from a simple 3D all around picture to proper X-Ray - you'd need to have it in your possession; CSI technology that can magically create data that's not in the picture or perform a full in depth "scan" from a distance doesn't exist yet.

And when that's the case, there's an important question to be asked - "why do you guys even have this part in your possession?".

I don't claim to know the details but I'd imagine you're right. If RP has the technology to accurately 3D scan cars, then everyone else would likely have it too - or would have it pretty quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if that technology exists for military and espionage purposes though.

But in reality, RP probably would have needed the parts in their possession to do the scanning. in that case, scanning is just a cover story for sharing/selling designs.

quokula

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When was f1 not an arms race? Its the pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence precisely because it's an arms race. The technology in the pass t was simpler but it was the cutting edge if it's day or else it wouldn't have been the pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence.

One difference is that the internal combustion engine had fewer competitors and was less far down its development track. Now the gains might not be as significant.

But what's the solution? One option would be to stop developing future technology and stop being the pinnacle of racing technology and engineering excellence.

The difference is that they used to develop technology with the goal of going faster. If a simple thing is faster than a more "advanced" complex thing, then the simple thing is better and that is what the pinnacle is.

The hybrid era might have been technically more complicated, but it was a huge downgrade on what came before in terms of speed and suitability for racing. It only exists because of political pressure mainly from Mercedes, who had a huge head start on development, and who wanted the word "hybrid" for marketing purposes. It's almost unique in the history of F1 as almost all other rule changes came from a desire either for safety, or for cost cutting, or to keep the grid close and improve racing.

On the other hand this formula made things more expensive and made the grid less close, and did nothing for safety. If you look at qualifying lap times, on most tracks the 2014 Mercedes was actually slower than the previous years Caterham or Marussia, or sometimes even slower than a Minardi built on a shoestring budget ten years earlier in 2004.

I'm aware that the cars are faster again now, but this is in spite of the 2014 formula not because of it. They had to change the regs to allow much more downforce and much wider tyres to make up for the extra weight of the engines. I'm pretty confident if Minardi had another 16 years of development on that 2004 car, with the current allowances of wider tyres and wider cars, then they might not be far off the pace of today's cars either.

The one and only redeeming feature of the current cars is that they use less fuel than before. I'm dubious about how much of F1's real carbon footprint they save as the racing is a tiny fraction of the fuel used shipping things all over the world (which will have increased a bit with the heavier components), and I'm also very dubious that this actually contributes much at all to "R&D" as the requirements for F1 are so wildly different to the requirements of road cars. Hybrids will soon be largely replaced by electric vehicles on the road anyway. And there's no reason racing has to copy what is happening on the road in terms of drivetrain, any more than the cars all need to have air conditioning, sat navs and reversing cameras installed. F1 does not and never has had any relationship with daily commuting vehicles.

V6 hybrids should only have replaced V8s in the event that they were quicker at going around a track, but they weren't and still aren't. The fastest hypercars on the road, which are on the cutting edge and not bound by any arbitrary rules, are starting to introduce supplementary hybrid systems (which the V8 F1 cars already had), but not one of them is a V6 turbo.

El_Duderino 09

quokula wrote: »

The difference is that they used to develop technology with the goal of going faster. If a simple thing is faster than a more "advanced" complex thing, then the simple thing is better and that is what the pinnacle is.

The hybrid era might have been technically more complicated, but it was a huge downgrade on what came before in terms of speed and suitability for racing. It only exists because of political pressure mainly from Mercedes, who had a huge head start on development, and who wanted the word "hybrid" for marketing purposes. It's almost unique in the history of F1 as almost all other rule changes came from a desire either for safety, or for cost cutting, or to keep the grid close and improve racing.
...

That's a change from ICE being the future technology to a situation where the future tech involves other things. There was a natural overlap where people wanted bigger and more powerful motor engines which happened to be pretty much exactly the technology F1 wanted and the car companies wanted.

Now car companies still want the most technologically advance, cutting edge technologies and that isn't just about making bigger and more powerful motor engines. That technology isn't cutting edge any longer. Some people seem to want to SAY f1 is the cutting edge, but it actually want it to go back to cut the edge of 80s technology again and again.

It can't be both cutting edge tech and be stuck in the past.

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's a change from ICE being the future technology to a situation where the future tech involves other things. There was a natural overlap where people wanted bigger and more powerful motor engines which happened to be pretty much exactly the technology F1 wanted and the car companies wanted.

Now car companies still want the most technologically advance, cutting edge technologies and that isn't just about making bigger and more powerful motor engines. That technology isn't cutting edge any longer. Some people seem to want to SAY f1 is the cutting edge, but it actually want it to go back to cut the edge of 80s technology again and again.

It can't be both cutting edge tech and be stuck in the past.

Pretty much bang on - it's a matter of deciding if it's more important for the series to be at the frontline of technology or to be purely show.

In the second case, then the formula needs a complete revamp and go more towards what series like Indycar are doing.

In all fairness, there's probably a big big case for having a "transitional period" with a "purely for show" forumula; we don't really know what this "future technology" will be.

Sheeps

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/150576/vettel-considering-aston-martin-offer-for-2021

This could be Checo out of a seat. Would be sad to see, but Stroll would basically have to give up his seat to be removed.

flazio

Sheeps wrote: »

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/150576/vettel-considering-aston-martin-offer-for-2021

This could be Checo out of a seat. Would be sad to see, but Stroll would basically have to give up his seat to be removed.

You know, Perez might just be the perfect fit for Williams. Talent and money.

H3llR4iser

Sheeps wrote: »

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/150576/vettel-considering-aston-martin-offer-for-2021

This could be Checo out of a seat. Would be sad to see, but Stroll would basically have to give up his seat to be removed.

That'd probably be a mistake for Vettel - he'd be better off either taking a sabbatical or searching for opportunities outside of F1. An idea could be to frustrate Alonso even further by achieving the "Triple Crown" before he does

AMKC

Sheeps wrote: »

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/150576/vettel-considering-aston-martin-offer-for-2021

This could be Checo out of a seat. Would be sad to see, but Stroll would basically have to give up his seat to be removed.

So Vettel to Racing Point or Haas, Sergio to Williams

Latafi to whichever seat is left Haas so I'd say. So if Vettel does go to Racing Point soon to be Aston Martin racing then this could save his career.

flazio wrote: »

You know, Perez might just be the perfect fit for Williams. Talent and money.

You could put the best talent In that William's and it would still not be great
It is not as bad as last years car mind but it still lacks down force Id say. Maybe the new regs will be better for them.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's a change from ICE being the future technology to a situation where the future tech involves other things. There was a natural overlap where people wanted bigger and more powerful motor engines which happened to be pretty much exactly the technology F1 wanted and the car companies wanted.

Now car companies still want the most technologically advance, cutting edge technologies and that isn't just about making bigger and more powerful motor engines. That technology isn't cutting edge any longer. Some people seem to want to SAY f1 is the cutting edge, but it actually want it to go back to cut the edge of 80s technology again and again.

It can't be both cutting edge tech and be stuck in the past.

In the 90s? They got rid of turbos before despite them becoming more and more important and displacement decreasing in road cars.
As for being cutting edge, the rules specifically prevent that. KERS had a limit on power which was reached instantly. Ground effect is banned. Cars were made heavier to accommodate the nonsense. Wings were made smaller. Tyres had grooves which were removed. Tyres wear out quickly, not exactly cutting edge.

I don't care about "cutting edge", I want the drivers to have to drive as hard as they can rather than constantly managing settings, saving fuel, minding tyres and all the rest. But that's just me.

BikeRacer

Haas could do with a paid driver in for Grosjean, it'll be Stroll. Billionaires are rarely sentimental when making money is involved.

Rattlehead_ie

Not to take away from the above chat as it is interesting. Personally I do feel current F1 more about what's said just above, rather than speed and drivers ability.

Also race and drive in the rain, k, thanks.

GarIT

AMKC wrote: »

So Vettel to Racing Point or Haas, Sergio to Williams

Latafi to whichever seat is left Haas so I'd say. So if Vettel does go to Racing Point soon to be Aston Martin racing then this could save his career.



You could put the best talent In that William's and it would still not be great
It is not as bad as last years car mind but it still lacks down force Id say. Maybe the new regs will be better for them.

Latafi's daddy is in talks at the moment to buy Williams for him to play with so I doubt he will be rushed out.

AMKC

GarIT wrote: »

Latafi's daddy is in talks at the moment to buy Williams for him to play with so I doubt he will be rushed out.

You mean to save William's

GarIT

AMKC wrote: »

You mean to save William's

Whatever what it is phrased I can't see Latifi losing his seat.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In the 90s? They got rid of turbos before despite them becoming more and more important and displacement decreasing in road cars.
As for being cutting edge, the rules specifically prevent that. KERS had a limit on power which was reached instantly. Ground effect is banned. Cars were made heavier to accommodate the nonsense. Wings were made smaller. Tyres had grooves which were removed. Tyres wear out quickly, not exactly cutting edge.

I don't care about "cutting edge", I want the drivers to have to drive as hard as they can rather than constantly managing settings, saving fuel, minding tyres and all the rest. But that's just me.

I didn't mention the 90s.
I'm not sure if any of those things you mentioned are cutting edge. Ground effect is decades old and has absolutely no real world application. Turbo is in the current formula, and who ever liked grooves in the tyres?

The current tyres are shyte. The wet tyres in particular are total guff and there's effectively a ban on the drivers talking about it.

If you want to know about future tech, don't ask me, ask the car companies and see where they're investing. If they go for a retro approach, then they have to give up the "cutting edge" moniker. And giving up that aspect of the sport starts the countdown on its own demise.

vectra

Daddy Stroll reportedly made an offer to Seb.

Story.

TCP/IP

vectra wrote: »

Daddy Stroll reportedly made an offer to Seb.

Story.

Read that think it’s a great offer if true by Aston as they need a leader if they are to push on in the coming years and Seb would be a great asset to the team will be tough on Checo but that’s racing.

pyramuid man

I dont know if anyone was listening to Paddock Pass last weekend but they brought up the speculation around Racing Point and that they offered a contract to Fernando Alonso.

They seemed to indicate that Lance Stroll would lose the seat and that he was very put out by the fact that Alonso was offered a contract. Vettel and Perez would clearly be the best line up for Racing point.

There comes a point when a team has developed a car that is competitive enough that the drivers start to make a real impact to the performance of the team. If racing point have a car that can compete at the top of the mid field and start to bridge the gap to the top teams. they really need to maximise their driver lineup rather than keeping the owners son happy. If they have serious aspirations about making Aston Martin a top team, they need to ditch Lance.

pjohnson

I'd say Ferrari/Renault may be kicking themselves if Checo is suddenly unseated. Obviously Williams/Haas/Alfa would jump at him but would he want to go back down the grid?

Wont be long till we see him linked to the 2nd Red Bull seat :pac: